Today's Headlines 10/5/04

* A new poll has showed that John Kerry and George Bush are statistically tied in the race to become President. Left wing analysts have argued that the country has grown tired of George Bush's message of bankrupting the country and destroying the world and have caught on to Kerry's message of bankrupting the country less and not destroying the world. Right wing analysts have argued that it was an infusion of money into the Kerry campaign by al Queda that has changed the numbers and that Bush would win the election once enough voter fraud is committed. Neutral analysts have postulated that it was Kerry's performance at the debate in which he was able to catch a paper airplane thrown at him by an eight year old girl that turned things around for his campaign.

* Merck announced that it was removing the drug Vioxx from the market because it was unable to give users a sustained erection.

* The Supreme Court announced today in a five-four decision that George Bush has defeated John Kerry in the November election. The decision, based on equitable estoppel, was written by Chief Justice Rehnquist. When asked why the Court had issued an opinion nearly a full month before the election, a spokesperson for Justice Rehnquist stated that the Court was committed to preventing the debacle of 2000 and wanted to prevent the court from becoming embroiled in another dispute and that deciding things now was the best way to avoid that.

* Op-Ed by Condoleezza Rice, National Security Advisor.

Now a lot of people, and I'm not saying that they're all terrorist sympathizers like John Kerry, but a lot of people have complained that the US should not have gone to war with Saddam Hussein. The primary argument advanced for this rational position is that in 2002 when the decision to go to war was made, the CIA had serious doubt that Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons. Those people, and like I said, they don't all donate money to al Queda like John Kerry, argue that the US knew that Iran and North Korea and Pakistan had nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons programs. And the US knew that saudi Arabia was funding al Queda. But we needed to go to war with Saddam Hussein to find out if he had nuclear weapons. If he did, then that would be really important, and if he didn't didn't, then we just take over the country for the oil and make Halliburton rich. Either way it's a win. So don't criticize the war in iraq. Not because it means you're a terrorist sympathizer if you do. Not because the FBI will arrest you and we'll hold you in Guantanamo Bay as an enemy combatant. But because the US had every right to go in and find out whether Hussein had nuclear weapons. he didn't and now we know.

Back to Today's Headlines Archive

Copyright Lawrence D. Weinberg 2004